X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,HTML_10_20, HTML_MESSAGE,UNPARSEABLE_RELAY autolearn=no version=3.1.0 Sender: -1.2 (spamval) -- NONE Return-Path: Received: from newman.eecs.umich.edu (newman.eecs.umich.edu [141.213.4.11]) by boston.eecs.umich.edu (8.12.10/8.12.9) with ESMTP id k15C01ma007453 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) for ; Sun, 5 Feb 2006 07:00:02 -0500 Received: from eyewitness.mr.itd.umich.edu (eyewitness.mr.itd.umich.edu [141.211.93.142]) by newman.eecs.umich.edu (8.13.2/8.13.0) with ESMTP id k15C00hT026208; Sun, 5 Feb 2006 07:00:00 -0500 Received: FROM zproxy.gmail.com (zproxy.gmail.com [64.233.162.200]) BY eyewitness.mr.itd.umich.edu ID 43E5E89E.9697B.16262 ; 5 Feb 2006 06:59:26 -0500 Received: by zproxy.gmail.com with SMTP id x3so892600nzd for ; Sun, 05 Feb 2006 03:59:26 -0800 (PST) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references; b=Ab4oxOiJOkcbOhOXsNkQpDGVpBsodDHqvConF3WkTjyztE0UvkWDECK3fhaLjN73om20TxEEpHLWzumE9BdlazxdhRuEc7HWDiECJ/AUJPguNmP6FNGm+9gvD5MchKbU+ziFjWDDUkwtwgs7Fkk6XrSrC6nabh9wYY7GxVCR29g= Received: by 10.36.127.12 with SMTP id z12mr652016nzc; Sun, 05 Feb 2006 03:59:26 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.36.23.11 with HTTP; Sun, 5 Feb 2006 03:59:26 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <00a901c62a3a$a0930fe0$54f1d58d Æ 0022430339> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_22171_29274040.1139140766278" References: <00a901c62a3a$a0930fe0$54f1d58d Æ 0022430339> X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.0 (2005-09-13) on newman.eecs.umich.edu X-Virus-Scan: : UVSCAN at UoM/EECS Date: Sun, 5 Feb 2006 06:59:26 -0500 To: James Mickens Cc: improvetheworld Æ umich.edu From: John Kapusky Subject: Re: view the infamous cartoons, support free speech, buy legos Status: O X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 381 ------=_Part_22171_29274040.1139140766278 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline Please remove me from your improve the world distribution. I have no idea where you are going??? On 2/5/06, James Mickens wrote: > > The Muslim outrage at the cartoons is completely unsurprising, but > this anger is extremely hypocritical. In many regards, the Arabic > media is quite outrageous by Western standards, but it shows no > interest in kowtowing towards our cultural sensitivities. For > example, the Arabic media is unflinching in displaying graphic > pictures of wounded or dead bodies; this policy has caused anger in > Washington when those bodies belong to American soldiers. The Arabic > media is also exceptionally disrespectful to Jewish people, > frequently describing them using crude racial stereotypes and > arbitrarily blaming them for the various ills of Arabic society (see > http://www.memri.org/antisemitism.html for more details). The blood > libel, already mentioned, is commonly depicted as truth in mainstream > Arabic papers. The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, a notorious > anti-Semitic tract describing a fictional Jewish plan for world > domination, was the basis of a multi-part Egyptian TV show which > presented the Protocols as real (see > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_libel_against_Jews and > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protocols_of_the_Elders_of_Zion for some > details). The list goes on and on. So it's a bit ironic that some > Muslims are incensed by a few cartoons, when the amount of offensive > material that comes out of their local press is much worse and much > more voluminous. > > Of course, the hypocrisy factor provides no ipso facto justification > for the publication of the cartoons; just because the Islamic press > is indecent by our standards doesn't mean that we should be obscene > by Islamic standards. But we should remember the original motivation > for publishing the cartoons. Most media coverage of the issue has > glossed over the context for the pictures, but the context is very > important. The cartoons appeared in a Danish newspaper article that > discussed the relationship between free speech and Islam. Consider > some text from that article: > > "The modern, secular society is rejected by some Muslims. They demand > a special position, insisting on special consideration of their own > religious feelings. It is incompatible with contemporary democracy > and freedom of speech, where you must be ready to put up with > insults, mockery and ridicule. It is certainly not always equally > attractive and nice to look at, and it does not mean that religious > feelings should be made fun of at any price, but that is less > important in this context . . . we are on our way to a slippery slope > where no-one can tell how the self-censorship will end. That is why > Morgenavisen Jyllands-Posten has invited members of the Danish > editorial cartoonists union to draw Muhammad as they see him." > > Fundamentally, the newspaper article dealt with the relationship > between religion and government. In an open, secular society, one is > free to be religious and to consider things blasphemous, but one must > tolerate plurality of opinion, even if one finds those opinions > distasteful. Personal rights derive from the agnostic pronouncements > of the government. In contrast, in a theocracy, and more > specifically, an Islamist society, the rights of citizens are > strictly derived from religious doctrines. Thus, that which is > religiously offensive is illegal. Being blasphemous becomes a state > crime, as it is in Saudi Arabia and everywhere else that some form of > sharia is enforced. > > The Danish newspaper was trying to explore the tension between the > Islamist vision and the secular European one. This is an important > and relevant issue to discuss, since the Islamist vision is utterly > incompatible with Western notions of personal liberty. This is just > the truth and we shouldn't shy away from it. If we are able to > criticize and satirize America's fundamentalist Christian right, then > we must be able to criticize and satirize Islamism without fear of > sounding politically incorrect. > > Note well that "Islamist" refers to the belief in Islam as a "total > system," i.e., as the ultimate and singular foundation of every > aspect of life. This is different than simply being Muslim---all > Islamists are Muslim, but not all Muslims are Islamists. The religion > of Islam is not intrinsically anti-democratic. For example, America's > Muslim population is well-assimilated and respectful of our secular > form of government. However, Europe's Muslim population is poorly > assimilated and, for various reasons, very suspicious of the secular > form of government. Incidents like the riots in France, the murder of > filmmaker Theo van Gogh in the Netherlands, and the insistence of > some European Muslim enclaves to prohibit the rights of women have > led European governments to restrict immigration and question what it > means to have a society that is both free and partially Islamic. > Europe has the right to be concerned about these issues and to > discuss them in an open manner; the fact that some Muslims disapprove > is proof that this conversation is far overdue. As stated in the > OpinionJournal article about Islam and demography, 60% of British > Muslims want to live under Islamic law in Britain itself! This is not > a good statistic, since the British government espouses > multiculturalism and is generally considered to be one of the best > European countries at assimilating immigrants. > > There is no reason why the West should allow all religions except > Islam to be satirized. Islamic sensitivities are no more and no less > important than any other, and Islamic sensitivities are not the > foundation of Western ideals of personal freedom. For example, some > interpretations of Islam circumscribe the role of women, but the > Western world shouldn't stifle the creative energy of females to > placate misogynists. Some Koranic interpretations prohibit one from > charging interest on loans, but we shouldn't change our financial > system for fear of offending Muslim financiers. If Western societies > want to engage in free debate, then this is our prerogative. > Discussing the relationship between Islam and free speech is > important, both to help Muslim immigrants in Western countries to > assimilate, and to learn how to nurture open societies in the Muslim > world. The cartoons of Mohammed were published in the context of this > dialogue. One might disagree with their publishing for practical > reasons, since some amount of outrage was to be expected. However, I > don't disagree with the spirit of the cartoons. > > ~j > > -- Regards, John J. Kapusky ------=_Part_22171_29274040.1139140766278 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline Please remove me from your improve the world distribution.  I have no = idea where you are going???

On 2/5/06, J= ames Mickens <jmickens Æ ee= cs.umich.edu> wrote:
The Muslim outrage at the cartoo= ns is completely unsurprising, but
this anger is extremely hypocritical.= In many regards, the Arabic
media is quite outrageous by Western standards, but it shows no
inte= rest in kowtowing towards our cultural sensitivities. For
example, the A= rabic media is unflinching in displaying graphic
pictures of wounded or = dead bodies; this policy has caused anger in
Washington when those bodies belong to American soldiers. The Arabicmedia is also exceptionally disrespectful to Jewish people,
frequently = describing them using crude racial stereotypes and
arbitrarily blaming t= hem for the various ills of Arabic society (see
http://www.memri.org= /antisemitism.html for more details). The blood
libel, already menti= oned, is commonly depicted as truth in mainstream
Arabic papers. The Pro= tocols of the Elders of Zion, a notorious
anti-Semitic tract describing a fictional Jewish plan for world
domi= nation, was the basis of a multi-part Egyptian TV show which
presented t= he Protocols as real (see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_libel_against_Jews and
http://en.wi= kipedia.org/wiki/Protocols_of_the_Elders_of_Zion for some
details). = The list goes on and on. So it's a bit ironic that some
Muslims are incensed by a few cartoons, when the amount of offensivematerial that comes out of their local press is much worse and much
mor= e voluminous.

Of course, the hypocrisy factor provides no ipso facto= justification
for the publication of the cartoons; just because the Islamic press
= is indecent by our standards doesn't mean that we should be obscene
by I= slamic standards. But we should remember the original motivation
for pub= lishing the cartoons. Most media coverage of the issue has
glossed over the context for the pictures, but the context is very
i= mportant. The cartoons appeared in a Danish newspaper article that
discu= ssed the relationship between free speech and Islam. Consider
some text = from that article:

"The modern, secular society is rejected by some Muslims. They= demand
a special position, insisting on special consideration of their = own
religious feelings. It is incompatible with contemporary democracy
and freedom of speech, where you must be ready to put up with
insult= s, mockery and ridicule. It is certainly not always equally
attractive a= nd nice to look at, and it does not mean that religious
feelings should = be made fun of at any price, but that is less
important in this context . . . we are on our way to a slippery slopewhere no-one can tell how the self-censorship will end. That is why
Mo= rgenavisen Jyllands-Posten has invited members of the Danish
editorial c= artoonists union to draw Muhammad as they see him."

Fundamentally, the newspaper article dealt with the relationshipbetween religion and government. In an open, secular society, one is
fr= ee to be religious and to consider things blasphemous, but one must
tolerate plurality of opinion, even if one finds those opinions
distaste= ful. Personal rights derive from the agnostic pronouncements
of the gove= rnment. In contrast, in a theocracy, and more
specifically, an Islamist = society, the rights of citizens are
strictly derived from religious doctrines. Thus, that which is
relig= iously offensive is illegal. Being blasphemous becomes a state
crime, as= it is in Saudi Arabia and everywhere else that some form of
sharia is e= nforced.

The Danish newspaper was trying to explore the tension between the<= br>Islamist vision and the secular European one. This is an important
an= d relevant issue to discuss, since the Islamist vision is utterly
incomp= atible with Western notions of personal liberty. This is just
the truth and we shouldn't shy away from it. If we are able to
criti= cize and satirize America's fundamentalist Christian right, then
we must= be able to criticize and satirize Islamism without fear of
sounding pol= itically incorrect.

Note well that "Islamist" refers to the belief in Islam a= s a "total
system," i.e., as the ultimate and singular foundat= ion of every
aspect of life. This is different than simply being Muslim-= --all
Islamists are Muslim, but not all Muslims are Islamists. The religionof Islam is not intrinsically anti-democratic. For example, America's
= Muslim population is well-assimilated and respectful of our secular
form of government. However, Europe's Muslim population is poorly
assimi= lated and, for various reasons, very suspicious of the secular
form of g= overnment. Incidents like the riots in France, the murder of
filmmaker T= heo van Gogh in the Netherlands, and the insistence of
some European Muslim enclaves to prohibit the rights of women have
l= ed European governments to restrict immigration and question what it
mea= ns to have a society that is both free and partially Islamic.
Europe has= the right to be concerned about these issues and to
discuss them in an open manner; the fact that some Muslims disapproveis proof that this conversation is far overdue. As stated in the
Opini= onJournal article about Islam and demography, 60% of British
Muslims wan= t to live under Islamic law in Britain itself! This is not
a good statistic, since the British government espouses
multicultura= lism and is generally considered to be one of the best
European countrie= s at assimilating immigrants.

There is no reason why the West should= allow all religions except
Islam to be satirized. Islamic sensitivities are no more and no lessimportant than any other, and Islamic sensitivities are not the
foundat= ion of Western ideals of personal freedom. For example, some
interpretat= ions of Islam circumscribe the role of women, but the
Western world shouldn't stifle the creative energy of females to
pla= cate misogynists. Some Koranic interpretations prohibit one from
chargin= g interest on loans, but we shouldn't change our financial
system for fe= ar of offending Muslim financiers. If Western societies
want to engage in free debate, then this is our prerogative.
Discuss= ing the relationship between Islam and free speech is
important, both to= help Muslim immigrants in Western countries to
assimilate, and to learn= how to nurture open societies in the Muslim
world. The cartoons of Mohammed were published in the context of thisdialogue. One might disagree with their publishing for practical
reaso= ns, since some amount of outrage was to be expected. However, I
don't di= sagree with the spirit of the cartoons.

~j




--
Regar= ds,

John J. Kapusky=20 ------=_Part_22171_29274040.1139140766278--